2419

The Journal of Experimental Biology 212, 2419-2425

Published by The Company of Biologists 2009
doi:10.1242/jeb.031161

The evolution of speed, size and shape in modern athletics

Jordan D. Charles and Adrian Bejan*
Duke University, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Durham, NC 27708, USA
*Author for correspondence (e-mail: abejan@duke.edu)

Accepted 5 May 2009

SUMMARY
In the present study, we show that the fastest runners and swimmers are becoming not only faster but also heavier, taller and
more slender. During the past century, the world record speeds for 100 m-freestyle and 100 m-dash have increased with body
mass (M) raised to the power 1/6, in accordance with the constructal scaling of animal locomotion. The world records also show
that the speeds have increased in proportion with body heights (H) raised to the power 1/2, in accordance with animal locomotion
scaling. If the athletes body is modeled with two length scales (H, body width L), the (M, H) data can be used to calculate the
slenderness of the body, H/L. The world records show that the body slenderness is increasing very slowly over time.
Key words: running, swimming, constructal, animal locomotion, body size scaling, athletics, speed records, world records.

INTRODUCTION
Animal locomotion scaling
Broadly speaking, larger animals move faster on earth than
smaller animals (Bejan, 2000; Hoppeler and Weibel, 2005; Weibel,
2000). This aspect of animal scaling is often overlooked because
large animals appear sluggish. Geese flap their wings infrequently.
Whales swing their tails as if not in a hurry. The scaling relations
of animal locomotion have been measured and studied empirically
as three separate locomotion mechanisms: flying (Bartholomew
and Casey, 1978; Greenewalt, 1975; Lighthill, 1974; Marden et
al., 1997; May, 1995; Tennekes, 1997; Wakeling, 1997), running
(Heglund et al., 1974; Iriarte-Diaz, 2002; Marsh, 1988;
Pennycuick, 1975) and swimming (Arnott et al., 1998; Brett, 1965;
Childress and Dudley, 2004; Drucker and Jensen, 1996; Kiceniuk
and Jones, 1977; Peake and Farrell, 2004; Rohr and Fish, 2004;
Videler, 1993).
More recently, a broader view of the commonality of animal
locomotion has been emerging (Ahlborn, 2004; Bejan, 2000;
Bejan, 2005; Bejan and Marden, 2006; Bejan and Lorente, 2008;
Hoppeler and Weibel, 2005; Marden and Allen, 2002; Muller and
van Leeuwen, 2004; Taylor et al., 2003; Weibel, 2000). For
example, according to constructal theory, animal locomotion is
a rhythm of body motion constructed such that the animal
achieves a balance between two expenditures of useful energy:
lifting weight on the vertical, and overcoming drag while
progressing on the horizontal (this analysis is reviewed in the
Appendix). The sum of the two efforts is minimal when the
two efforts are of the same size. In this regime the body-mass
scaling relations (slope and intercept) of animal locomotion are
predicted and are in agreement with the measurements of
swimmers, runners and fliers over the body mass (M) range
106103 kg:
(i) travel speeds (V) proportional to M1/6, where M is the body mass,
is the body density and g is gravitational acceleration, for
example, for running on soft ground and swimming:
V ~ g1/2 1/6 M1/6 ,
(ii) body frequencies (t1) (flapping, stride, fish tailing) proportional
to M1/6:
t1 ~ g1/2 1/6 M1/6 , (2)
(iii) body force (F) scale equal to M:
F ~ Mg , (3)
(iv) food requirement (useful energy, W) per distance traveled (Lx),
which is proportional to M:
W
~ Mg . (4)
Lx
The corresponding scaling laws for flying and running with air drag
are similar to Eqns 14. These relations are accurate within a
dimensionless factor of order 1, as they were derived based on scale
analysis. In spite of this built-in approximation, they agree well with
the large body of experimental data available (Bejan and Marden,
2006).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Speed and body mass
We used this constructal framework to examine the evolution of
speeds in modern athletics: the evolution of the sport (winning
speeds and body metrics), not the evolution of the athletes. We
focused on the two most documented probes for men, the 100 m-
freestyle in swimming and the 100 m-dash in track. These are sprint
probes, not endurance events. Sprint probes require intense
expenditure of work during a relatively short period of time.
In Fig. 1A and Table 1 we see the evolution of the world speed
record (V) for male 100 m-freestyle swimming since 1912. Because
of the theoretical scaling (i), we also researched the evolution of
the body masses of the record-breaking athletes (Fig. 1B). Both V
and M have been increasing in time (t). By eliminating t between
Fig. 1A,B, we found Fig. 1C, which shows the evolution of V vs M.
RESULTS
There is scatter in Fig. 1C because the span of the V and M data is
(1) short, much shorter than the span of all biological cases of animal

THE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY

2420 J. D. Charles and A. Bejan

3 A 11.0
A

2.5 10.5

V (m s1)
V (m s1)

2 10.0

1.5 9.5

1 9.0
1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000

120 B 120 B

100 100
M (kg)

M (kg)
80 80

60 60

1900 1950 2000 1900 1950 2000

t t
3.0 C 11.0 C

2.5 10.5
V (m s1)
V (m s1)

2.0 10.0
Eqn 5
1.5
9.5 Eqn 6

1.0
60 70 80 90 100 110 9.0
60 70 80 90
M (kg)
M (kg)
Fig. 1. Swimming world records for 100 m freestyle, men: (A) speed (V) vs Fig. 2. Running world records for 100 m dash, men: (A) speed (V) vs time
time (t); (B) body mass (M) vs t; (C) V vs M. The world record data for all (t); (B) body mass (M) vs t; (C) V vs M. The world record data for all the
the figures cover the period 19122008, and are listed in Table 1. figures cover the period 19292008 and are listed in Table 2.

locomotion correlated in Bejan and Marden (Bejan and Marden,
2006), where the M range was 106103 kg. The shortness of the
contemporary timeframe has the effect of magnifying the scatter of
the data. Several additional factors also contribute to the scatter, for
example, technology (space age swimming suits, running shoes and
chronometry), competition environment (state of the art aquatic and
track and field venues) and changes in the rules of competition. In
spite of these random variables, the evolutionary direction of animal
locomotion (Eqn 1) is respected: as an average, the faster swimmers
are bigger. The best fit of the (V, M) data of Fig. 1C according to the
theoretical proportionality between V and M1/6 (cf. Eqn 1) is:
V ~ 0.72 M1/6 ,
where V and M are expressed in m s and kg, respectively. Eqn 5a
1
was obtained by power law regression, with R2=0.171. The P-value
is 0.028, and because it is less than 0.05, the correlation shown in
Eqn 5a is statistically significant (Soong, 2004; Vogt, 2005).
The P-value is even smaller if we correlate the VM data of
Fig. 1C with a more general power law V=aMb, in which the
constants a and b can be optimized. The best fit of this kind is:
V ~ 0.68 M0.23 , (5b)
for which the P-value is 0.023 and R2=0.19. Note the slight
difference between the exponent 0.23 and the theoretical exponent
1/60.17. The scaling (Eqn 5b) represents a steeper increase in V
with M than in the broad-range animal scaling (Eqn 1).
(5a)
Numerically, the two formulas (Eqn 5b and Eqn 1) agree in the M
range of humans, and for this reason the V~M1/6 scaling of Eqn 5a
is sufficient for concluding that the animal scaling (Eqn 1)

THE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY

 The evolution of speed, size and shape 2421

2.5 A 11.0 A

10.5
2.0
V (m s1)

V (m s1)
Eqn 7 10.0
1.5

9.5
Eqn 8
1.0
1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
H (m) 9.0
1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9
3.0 B H (m)
2.5 B
2.5
H (m)

2.0 2.0

1.5 H (m)
1.5

1.0
1900 1950 2000
t

Fig. 3. Swimming world records for 100 m freestyle, men: (A) Speed (V) vs 1.0
1900 1950 2000
body height (H); (B) H vs time (t).
t

manifests itself in the evolution of swimming speeds vs mass
among record holders.
For 100 m dash (Fig. 2), the trend, scatter and conclusion are the
same. Eliminating t between Fig. 2A,B, we arrived at Fig. 2C. The
power law regression equation for the data in Fig. 2C is:
V ~ 4.85 M1/6 ,
with R =0.364. The P-value is 0.007, again indicating statistical
2
significance.
Noteworthy are the factors 0.72 and 4.85 in Eqns 5a and 6,
respectively. These factors of order 1 agree with the theoretical
scaling (Eqn 1), which after substituting the values for g and yields
for swimming and running V~1M1/6. Here 1 is the intercept of
the line plotted as log V vs log M. Also noteworthy is that the factor
for running (4.85) is greater than the factor for swimming (0.72).
This also agrees with the manner in which the empirical factor (not
shown in Eqn 1 but reported in the Appendix) differentiates between
the power-law correlations of animal speed data for runners and
swimmers (Bejan and Marden, 2006).
Body height
The conclusion that body size has an effect on speed, Eqns 5a and
6, agrees fully with the doctrine of animal scaling (Bejan, 2000;
Hoppeler and Weibel, 2005; Weibel, 2000). Size can be expressed
not only as M but also as body height (H). In the scale analysis that
led to Eqns 14, the body was modeled in the simplest possible way:
with one length scale, which meant that M~Lb3, where Lb is the
lone length scale. Accordingly, the theoretical speed V of Eqn 1
Fig. 4. Running world records for 100 m dash, men: (A) Speed (V) vs body
height (H); (B) H vs time (t).
should be proportional to Lb1/2 . In Fig. 3A and Fig. 4A we plotted
the data of Tables 1 and 2 by using the H of the athletes as the length
scale Lb. We determined the best correlations of type V~Lb1/2, based
(6)
on power law regression:
V ~ 1.37 Lb1/2 (100 m freestyle) , (7)
V ~ 7.45 Lb1/2 (100 m dash) , (8)
where Lb is expressed in meters, R2=0.248 and 0.433 for Eqns 7 and
8, respectively. The corresponding P-values are 0.009 and 0.001,
respectively; thus, indicating statistical significance for both
correlations. The H data of Tables 1 and 2 are plotted vs t in Fig. 3B
and Fig. 4B, respectively.
The proportionality between speeds and body length raised to
the power 1/2 (Eqns 7 and 8) suggests a simpler way to derive the
speedmass scaling rule (Eqn 1), much simpler than the analysis
shown in the Appendix. During each cycle of locomotion the body
falls from a height of order Lb. The time scale of the fall is of order
t~(Lb/g)1/2. The body falls forward to a distance of order Lb;
therefore, the horizontal velocity scale is V~Lb/t~(gLb)1/2. Combining
this V scale with Lb~(M/)1/3 we arrive at Eqn 1.
Body slenderness
A body model that is more realistic than the single-scale model is
a cylinder of height H and diameter (width) L. The M in this model

THE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY

2422 J. D. Charles and A. Bejan

Table 1. Mens 100 m freestyle world records

Year Name Time (s) Height (m) Mass (kg) Slenderness
1912 Duke Kahanamoku 61.6 1.88 83.9 7.88
1918 Duke Kahanamoku 61.4 1.88 83.9 7.88
1920 Duke Kahanamoku 60.4 1.88 83.9 7.88
1922 Johnny Weissmuller 58.6 1.91 86.2 7.94
1924 Johnny Weissmuller 57.4 1.91 86.2 7.94
1944 Alan Ford 55.9 1.75 68.0 7.88
1947 Alex Jany 55.8 1.88 77.1 7.89
1948 Alan Ford 55.4 1.75 68.0 7.88
1956 John Henricks 55.4 1.80 81.6 7.74
1957 John Devitt 55.2 1.91 90.7 7.43
1957 John Devitt 54.6 1.91 90.7 7.43
1961 Steve Clarke 54.4 1.83 75.9 7.96
1968 Michael Wenden 52.2 1.85 78.2 7.97
1970 Mark Spitz 51.9 1.85 79.4 7.95
1972 Mark Spitz 51.47 1.85 79.4 7.95
1972 Mark Spitz 51.22 1.85 79.4 7.95
1975 James Montgomery 51.12 1.96 93.0 7.95
1975 Andrew Cohen 51.11 1.96 95.3 7.85
1975 James Montgomery 50.59 1.96 93.0 7.94
1976 James Montgomery 50.39 1.96 93.0 7.94
1976 James Montgomery 49.99 1.96 93.0 7.94
1976 Jonty Skinner 49.44 1.96 97.5 7.76
1981 Rowdy Gains 49.36 1.83 81.6 7.67
1985 Matt Biondi 49.24 2.00 102.1 7.88
1986 Matt Biondi 48.74 2.00 102.1 7.88
1988 Matt Biondi 48.42 2.00 102.1 7.88
1994 Alexander Popov 48.21 2.00 99.8 7.97
2000 Michael Klim 48.18 1.91 82.0 8.16
2000 Pieter van den Hoogenband 47.84 1.93 81.6 8.31
2008 Alain Bernard 47.6 1.96 86.2 8.26
2008 Alain Bernard 47.5 1.96 86.2 8.26
2008 Eamon Sullivan 47.24 1.90 78.2 8.29
2008 Alain Bernard 47.2 1.96 86.2 8.26
2008 Eamon Sullivan 47.05 1.90 78.2 8.29

Table 2. Mens 100 m dash world records

Year Name Time (s) Height (m) Mass (kg) Slenderness
1929 Eddie Tolan 10.4 1.70 65.8 7.61
1930 Percy Williams 10.3 1.68 63.5 7.63
1932 Eddie Tolan 10.3 1.70 65.8 7.67
1932 Ralph Metcalfe 10.3 1.80 77.1 7.73
1933 Ralph Metcalfe 10.3 1.80 77.1 7.73
1934 Ralph Metcalfe 10.3 1.80 77.1 7.73
1936 Jesse Owens 10.2 1.78 74.8 7.68
1948 Barney Ewell 10.2 1.75 70.3 7.75
1951 Emmanuel McDonald Bailey 10.2 1.73 86.2 6.85
1968 Charles Greene 10 1.73 68.0 7.71
1968 Charles Greene 9.9 1.73 68.0 7.71
1972 Eddie Hart 9.9 1.78 71.2 7.87
1976 Harvey Glance 9.9 1.88 83.9 7.88
1987 Carl Lewis 9.93 1.88 81.6 7.99
1987 Ben Johnson 9.83 1.88 86.2 7.78
1988 Ben Johnson 9.79 1.88 86.2 7.78
1988 Carl Lewis 9.92 1.88 81.6 7.99
1991 Carl Lewis 9.86 1.88 81.6 7.99
1999 Maurice Greene 9.79 1.75 79.8 7.28
2002 Tim Montgomery 9.78 1.78 72.6 7.80
2005 Asafa Powell 9.77 1.91 88.0 7.85
2006 Justin Gatlin 9.77 1.85 85.0 7.65
2006 Asafa Powell 9.77 1.91 88.0 7.85
2006 Asafa Powell 9.77 1.91 88.0 7.85
2007 Asafa Powell 9.74 1.91 88.0 7.85
2008 Usain Bolt 9.69 1.96 86.0 8.29

THE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY

 The evolution of speed, size and shape 2423

9.0 A 100 m freestyle 9.0 A 100 m freestyle

8.5 8.5

8.0 8.0
S

S
Eqn 12
7.5 7.5

7.0 7.0
1900 1950 2000 60 70 80 90 100 110

9.0 B 100 m dash

9.0 B 100 m dash

8.5
8.5

8.0
S

8.0
S

7.5
Eqn 13 7.5

7.0
1900 1950 2000 7.0
60 70 80 90 100 110
t
M (kg)
Fig. 5. The evolution of the slenderness of record holders over time: (A)
100 m freestyle, men; (B) 100 m dash, men. Fig. 6. The slenderness of record holders vs body mass: (A) 100 m
freestyle, men; (B) 100 m dash, men.

is M=(/4)L2H. We used the body density (~1000 kg m3), the
recorded M and the recorded H to calculate the athletes width scale
L=(4M/H)1/2. We then used the recorded H and the calculated L
to define the slenderness (S) of the body:
1/2
H H 3
S= = .
L 4 M
The S values calculated in this manner are reported for each athlete
in Tables 1 and 2. Their significance becomes apparent if we
combine this two-scale body model with the locomotion model
proposed at the end of the preceding section.
In swimming, the vertical length scale is L, the time scale of the
fall is (L/g)1/2 and the forward speed is of order V~(gL)1/2. Omitting
factors of order 1 (such as /4), we combine the mass scale
(M~L2H) with S=H/L and obtain L~(M/)1/3S1/3 and:
Vswim ~ g1/2 1/6 M1/6 S1/6 .
In running, the vertical length scale is H, and the corresponding
scales are t~(H/g)1/2, V~(gH)1/2 and H~(M/)1/3S2/3. The speedmass
relation that replaces Eqn 1 is:
Vrun ~ g
1/2
1/6
M S 1/6 1/3
. (11)
The S effect differentiates between running and swimming.
Dividing Eqns 11 and 10 we anticipate Vrun/Vswim~S1/2, which is a
number of the same order as the ratio between Eqns 6 and 5a. The
two-scale model also suggests that from among athletes with the
same mass, the ones with larger S values are more likely to run fast.
In swimming, the S effect is the opposite but weaker: swimmers
would be slightly faster if more robust (smaller S).
Fig. 5A,B show the S data plotted vs t, and indicate a weak
(9)
progress toward larger S values for both swimming and running.
The best linear fits for the two sets of data are:
S = 0.48 + 0.0038t (100 m freestyle) , (12)
S = 1.7 + 0.0031t (100 m dash) , (13)
where t is the year, R2=0.31 and 0.13, and P=0.001 and 0.07,
respectively.
The same S data are plotted against M in Fig. 6A,B. The data are
too sparse to yield statistically significant correlations; however,
(10)
qualitatively they suggest a slight increase in S vs M for running
and a slight decrease in S vs M for swimming.
DISCUSSION
The scaling trends revealed by the speed data suggest that speed
records will continue to be dominated by heavier and taller athletes.
This trend is due to the scaling rules of animal locomotion, not to
the contemporary increase in the average body size of humans. The

THE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY

2424 J. D. Charles and A. Bejan

mean height of humans has increased by roughly 5 cm from 1900 cycle. Together, these scales allow us to estimate the total work per
to 2002 (Plastic Soldier Review, 2002). During the same century, distance travelled:
the mean height of champion swimmers and runners has increased W1 + W2 MgLb
by 11.4 cm and 16.2 cm, respectively (Fig. 3C, Fig. 4C). ~ + mV 2 L2b . (A4)
Lx Lx
The insight gained in this paper allows us to speculate what the
running speeds might have been in ancient Greece and the Roman The time scale of the cycle is the Galilean time of free fall from
Empire. There is no record of what the winning speeds were then, the height Lb:
because the competition was for winning the race, not for breaking 1/2
a time record. Chronometry did not exist. In antiquity body masses Lb
t~ . (A5)
were roughly 70% of what they are today (Plastic Soldier Review, g
2002; Hpathy 2009; National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, 1999). According to Eqn 6, this means that speeds were The horizontal travel during the cycle is Lx~Vt, and Eqn A4
lower by a factor of roughly (0.7)1/6=0.94. In other words, if the becomes:
100 m dash in military training today is won in 13 s, 2000 years ago
W1 + W2 L1/2
it would have been won in ~14 s. ~ Mg 3/2 b + m L2bV 2 . (A6)
This insight also teaches us why certain training techniques are Lx V
successful in high-performance sports. For example, in modern speed The right side is a sum of two terms combined as A/V+BV2, where
swimming, the doctrine holds that the swimmer must raise his body A and B are two constants and V may vary. This sum is minimal
to the highest level possible above the water. Two explanations are when V~(A/B)1/3, which yields:
given for this swimming doctrine: air drag is much smaller than water 1/3
friction, and the water wave generated by the body propels the body
V ~ g1/2 1/6 M 1/6 . (A7)
better (Collela, 2009). The doctrine is correct but for a different m
reason, which is evident in Eqn7. When the body is high above the
water it falls faster (and forward) when it reaches the water line. For The frequency associated with this cycle is t1~(g/Lb)1/2 or:
the same reason, the speeds of all water waves exhibit the same scale
t1 ~ g1/21/6M1/6 . (A8)
as in Eqn7, in which Lb is the length scale of the wave (Prandtl,
1969). The crest of the wave falls with a speed of order (gLb)1/2, The necessary body force scale F is dictated by the lifting work
which becomes visible as the forward speed of the traveling wave. W1~FLb~MgLb therefore:
F ~ Mg . (A9)
CONCLUSION
In the future, the fastest athletes can be expected to be heavier and The minimum work per distance traveled is obtained by
taller. If the winners podium is to include athletes of all sizes, then substituting Eqn A7 and Lb~(M/)1/3 into Eqn A6:
speed competitions might have to be divided into weight categories.
1/3
This is not at all unrealistic in view of the body force scaling (Eqn3), W1 + W2 m
L ~ Mg . (A10)
which was recognized from the beginning in the structuring of modern x min

athletics. Larger athletes lift, push and punch harder than smaller
athletes, and this led to the establishment of weight classes for weight In conclusion, the scaling relations (Eqns 14) have been derived
lifting, wrestling and boxing. Larger athletes also run and swim faster. here in Eqns A7A10. The modifying factor (m/)1/3 depends on
the medium. In flying, the m (air) is roughly equal to /103, and
APPENDIX the factor (m/)1/3 is close to 1/10. In swimming, the m (water)
Here is a brief summary of the scale analysis of animal locomotion, is the same as the body density, and the factor (m/)1/3 is 1. In
which leads to Eqns 14. It was first done for flying (Bejan, 2000) running, the modifying factor is between 1/10 and 1, and depends
and then generalized to all locomotion: running, flying and on the nature of the running surface and the speed. For example,
swimming (Bejan and Marden, 2006). running through snow, mud and sand is represented by a (m/)1/3
The animal body has a single length scale (Lb). Its mass scale is value close to 1. Running at high speed on a dry surface is
MLb3. Locomotion is a rhythm a sequence of cycles. During represented more closely by a (m/)1/3 factor similar to the one
each cycle the body must perform work in two ways, in the vertical that represents flying.
direction (W1) and in the horizontal direction (W2). Both W1 and In summary, the effect of the factor (m/)1/3 is weak and of
W2 are destroyed. The vertical work is necessary in order to lift the order 1, and for this reason it was left out of Eqns 1 and 4. Important
body to a height of order Lb: to note is that (m/)1/3 differentiates between locomotion media
in an unmistakable direction: if M is fixed, speeds increase in the
W1 ~ MgLb . (A1)
direction sea r land r air (cf. Eqn A7); the work requirement
The horizontal work is necessary in order to push through and decreases in the same direction (cf. Eqn A10). The animal speeds
penetrate the surrounding medium. If the body length and speed collected over the M=103103 kg range in fig. 2 of Bejan and
scales (i.e. the Reynolds number) are large enough, then the Marden (Bejan and Marden, 2006) confirm the differentiating
horizontal work is of order: effect of the surrounding medium. Each cloud of data is
approximated by:
W2 ~ FdragLx , (A2)
V ~ 10M1/6 (flyers) , (A11)
Fdrag ~ mV2Lb2CD , (A3)
V ~ 4M1/6 (runners) , (A12)
where Fdrag is the drag force, m is the density of the medium, CD~1
is the drag coefficient and Lx is the distance traveled during the V ~ 1M1/6 (swimmers) . (A13)

THE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY

 The evolution of speed, size and shape 2425

It can be verified that Eqn A11A13 agree with Eqn 1 within a factor Brett, J. R. (1965). The relation of size to rate of oxygen consumption and sustained
swimming speed of sockeye salmon (Onocorhyncus nerka). J. Fish. Res. Bd.
of order 1. They also agree with Eqns 5 and 6. Canada 22, 1491-1497.
The data collected in fig. 2 of Bejan and Marden (Bejan and Childress, S. and Dudley, R. (2004). Transition from ciliary to flapping mode in
swimming mollusc: flapping flight as a bifurcation in Re. J. Fluid Mech. 498, 257-
Marden, 2006) also confirm that the medium factor (m/)1/3 does 288.
not have an effect on the frequencies (t1) and forces (F) of flyers, Collela, D. (2009). Duke University Swimming Coach, Interview.
Drucker, E. G. and Jensen, J. S. (1996). Pectoral fin locomotion in striped surfperch.
runners and swimmers. This is in accordance with Eqns A8 and A9, II. Scaling swimming kinematics and performance at gait transition. J. Exp. Biol. 199,
in which (m/)1/3 is not present. 2243-2252.
Greenewalt, C. H. (1975). The flight of birds: the significant dimensions, their
departure from the requirements of geometrical similarity, and the effect on flight
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS aerodynamics of that departure. Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 65, 1-67.
CD drag coefficient Heglund, N. C., Taylor, C. R. and McMahon, T. A. (1974). Scaling stride frequency
F force, N and gait to animal size: mice to horses. Science 186, 1112-1113.
Hoppeler, H. and Weibel, E. R. (2005). Scaling functions to body size: theories and
Fdrag drag force, N facts, special issue. J. Exp. Biol. 208, 1573-1769.
g gravitational acceleration, m s2 Hpathy (2009). Ideal body weight for male and female adults,
H body height, m http://www.hpathy.com/healthytools/body-weight.asp. Retrieved March 28, 2009.
Iriarte-Diaz, J. (2002). Differential scaling of locomotor performance in small and large
L body width, m terrestrial mammals. J. Exp. Biol. 205, 2897-2908.
Lb single body length scale, m Kiceniuk, J. W. and Jones, D. R. (1977). The oxygen transport system in trout
Lx distance traveled, m (Salmo gairdneri) during sustained exercise. J. Exp. Biol. 69, 247-260.
M body mass, kg Lighthill, J. (1974). Aeordynamic Aspects of Animal Flight. British Hydrodynamics
Research Association, 5th Fluid Science Lecture, June 1974, p. 30.
P probability of true null hypothesis Marden, J. H. and Allen, L. R. (2002). Molecules, muscles, and machines: universal
R2 coefficient of determination characteristics of motors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 4161-4166.
S body slenderness, H/L Marden, J. H., Wolf, M. R. and Weber, K. E. (1997). Aerial performance of Drosophila
t period, s melanogaster from populations selected for upwind flight ability. J. Exp. Biol. 200,
2747-2755.
t time, years Marsh, R. L. (1988). Ontogenesis of contractile properties of skeletal muscle and
t1 frequency, s1 sprint performance in the lizard Dipsosaurus dorsalis. J. Exp. Biol. 137, 119-139.
V speed, m s1 May, M. L. (1995). Dependence of flight behavior and heat production on air
W work, useful energy, J temperature in the green darner dragonfly, Anax junius (Odonata: Aeshnidae). J.
Exp. Biol. 198, 2385-2392.
W1 work done vertically, J Muller, U. K. and van Leeuwen, J. L. (2004). Swimming of larval zebrafish: ontogeny
W2 work done horizontally, J of body waves and implications for locomotory development. J. Exp. Biol. 207, 853-
body density, kg m3 868.
NHANES Study (1999). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Average
m density of the medium, kg m3 weight for an adult man, 1999-2002.
Peake, S. J. and Farrell, A. P. (2004). Locomotory behaviour and post-exercise
J.C. is the starting 100 m breaststroke swimmer on Duke Universitys NCAA physiology in relation to swimming speed, gait transition and metabolism in free-
swimming team. A.B.s research on the constructal law of design in nature is swimming smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu). J. Exp. Biol. 207, 1563-1575.
supported by grants from the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the Pennycuick, C. J. (1975). On the running of the Gnu (Connochaetes taurinus) and
National Science Foundation. other animals. J. Exp. Biol. 63, 775-799.
Plastic Soldier Review (2002). Human height,
http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Features/ Size.html, Retrieved May 5, 2008.
Prandtl, L. (1969). Essentials of Fluid Dynamics. London: Blackie.
REFERENCES Rohr, J. J. and Fish, F. E. (2004). Strouhal numbers and optimization of swimming by
Ahlborn, B. K. (2004). Zoological Physics. Berlin: Springer. odontocete cetaceans. J. Exp. Biol. 207, 1633-1642.
Arnott, S. A., Neil, D. M. and Ansell, A. D. (1998). Tail-flip mechanism and size- Soong, T. T. (2004). Fundamentals of Probability and Statistics for Engineers.
dependent kinematics of escape swimming in the brown shrimp Cangon crangon. J. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Exp. Biol. 201, 1771-1784. Taylor, G. K., Nudds, R. L. and Thomas, A. L. R. (2003). Flying and swimming
Bartholomew, G. A. and Casey, T. M. (1978). Oxygen consumption of moths during animals cruise at a Strouhal number tuned for high power efficiency. Nature 425,
rest, pre-flight warm-up, and flight in relation to body size and wing morphology. J. 707-711.
Exp. Biol. 76, 11-25. Tennekes, H. (1997). The Simple Science of Flight: From Insects to Jumbo Jets.
Bejan, A. (2000). Shape and Structure: From Engineering to Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cambridge University Press. Videler, J. J. (1993). Fish Swimming. London: Chapman & Hall.
Bejan, A. (2005). The constructal law of organization in nature: tree-shaped flows and Vogt, P. (2005). Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
body size. J. Exp. Biol. 208, 1677-1686. Publications.
Bejan, A. and Lorente, S. (2008). Design with Constructal Theory. Hoboken, NJ: Wakeling, J. M. (1997). Dragonfly flight III. Lift and power requirements. J. Exp. Biol.
Wiley. 200, 583-600.
Bejan, A. and Marden, J. H. (2006). Unifying constructal theory for scale effects in Weibel, E. R. (2000). Symmorphosis: On Form and Function in Shaping Life.
running, swimming and flying. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 238-248. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

THE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY